MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106229679 · doi:10.1007/s12630-020-01866-3

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study

2020· article· en· W3106229679 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Karla D. Krewulak, Nubia Zepeda, Christian E. Farrier, Krista Spence, Judy E. Davidson, Henry T. Stelfox, Kirsten M. Fiest

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie UniversityAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty NetworkM.S.I. FoundationGovernment of CanadaAlberta Health Services
KeywordsDeliriumFocus groupThematic analysisMedicineQualitative researchHealth careNursingFamily memberIntensive care unitContext (archaeology)Family medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: While studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care. METHODS: In this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta. RESULTS: Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésieSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207